On 25/08/2005, at 3:00 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
Am 25.08.2005 um 00:07 schrieb Mark Nottingham:
Just bouncing an idea around; it seems that there's a fair amount
of confusion / fuzziness caused by the term 'stateful'. Would
people prefer the term 'incremental'?
I.e., instead of a "stateful feed", it would be an "incremental
feed"; fh:stateful would become fh:incremental.
I would prefer to name such a feed a "chunked" feed. So, that would
make it fh:chunked=(true|false).
Hmm. I tend to shy away from 'chunked', because that already has
meaning in HTTP, and while the format isn't dependant upon HTTP, it
might get confusing (witness "bindings" and "properties" in the Web
services world).
That leaves the "history" analogy a bit behind, I'm afraid. So a
"chunked feed" would be a history if "fh:order=publish-time"? Maybe
not worth it, just a thought.
I totally see an ordering extension being useful, but I think it's
orthogonal to fh.
I see one use of feed histories in making normal feed documents
very small and still being able to offer a rather long list of
entries. Clients checking for updates would just get a tiny
document (2 entries maybe) iff they do not use HTTP caching or ETag
validation. Could this be some transfer-volume saver?
Hopefully. I think one of the reasons people publish such big feeds
right now is that they want to make sure people will see entries if
they haven't checked in a while.
Cheers,
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
